Social Research Update is published quarterly by the Department of
Sociology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, England.
Subscriptions for the hardcopy version are free to researchers with
addresses in the UK. Apply by email to sru@soc.surrey.ac.uk.

Official Social Classifications in the UK

David Rose

David Rose is Associate Director and Professor in the ESRC
Research Centre on Micro-social Change, University of Essex.
He is also Director of the Essex Institute for the Social Sciences.
Currently he is convening the ESRC Review of OPCS Social
Classifications.
He is joint author of Property, Paternalism and Power (1978),
Social Class in Modern Britain (1988) and
Changing Households (1994) and edited Social Stratification
and Economic Change (1988).

The practice of officially classifying the British population
according to occupation and industry began in 1851. The occupational
element was gradually increased from 1881, and in 1887 the idea was
first mooted by the Assistant Registrar General that, for mortality
analyses, the population might be divided into broad groups based on
social standing. However, it was only in 1911 that government
recognised that the concepts of occupation and industry were distinct
and so included separate questions on each in that year's Census.
Although at this time it was still not thought possible to classify
occupations without reference to industry, we can take 1911 as a
watershed year in the history of official UK social classifications
based on occupations. The Registrar General's Annual Report for 1911
(not published until 1913) included, without any fanfare, a summary
of occupations designed to represent 'social grades'. These were
later referred to as 'social classes' and were used for the analysis
of mortality data and the 1911 Census tables on Fertility of
Marriage. Thus were inaugurated the Registrar General's Social
Classes (RGSC), re-named in 1990, Social Class based on
Occupation.

The history of social class schemes

The person responsible for devising the social class scheme was T
H C Stevenson, a medical statistician in the General Register Office.
His 1913 classification mixed occupational and industrial groups.
While Stevenson conceived society as divided into three basic social
classes (the upper, middle and working classes), in fact he produced
an eight-fold classification by introducing intermediate classes
between the upper and middle classes and between the middle and
working classes; and adding three industrial groups for those working
in mining, textiles and agriculture.

In 1921 there was a major revision of the class scheme. This was
made possible by the introduction of the first proper classification
of occupations. The three industrial social classes were re-allocated
between the other classes and the new five class scheme was used for
the analysis of infant and occupational mortality and fertility. Not
only did this revision give stronger emphasis to 'skill', but there
is persuasive evidence that the revision was constructed in the light
of knowledge of mortality rates. Thereby it produced the mortality
gradients so long cherished by those who use RGSC for this
purpose.

In 1928, Stevenson gave the first indication of the conceptual
basis of his scheme. In a paper on 'The Vital Statistics of Wealth
and Poverty' read to the Royal Statistical Society, Stevenson noted
that 'culture' was more important than material factors in explaining
the lower mortality of the 'wealthier classes'. And 'culture' (which
for Stevenson included knowledge of health and hygiene issues) was
more easily equated to occupation than to income and wealth. Hence
Stevenson inferred social position from occupation as an indicator of
'culture'. He admitted that the assignment of occupations to classes
was largely an empirical matter and thus dependent on individual
judgement. The validation of the scheme could be seen in the results
it produced, for example the mortality gradients associated with the
scheme which showed a uniform increase as one moved down the social
scale.

Thus, the Registrar-General's class scheme rested on the
assumption that society is a graded hierarchy of occupations. The
five basic social classes recognised by the Office of Population
Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) were described, from 1921 to 1971, as an
ordinal classification of occupations according to their reputed
'standing within the community'. In 1980, this was changed so that
social class was equated directly with occupational skill.
Unfortunately, OPCS did not explain the principles behind this
reconceptualization. Since only about 7 per cent of cases were
awarded different class codes when the same data were coded according
to both 1970 and 1980 procedures and then cross-classified, it seems
that, in practice, the changes in mechanism for allocating
occupations to classes achieved little beyond further obfuscation of
the already somewhat unclear class categories themselves. The 1990
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) is much more explicitly
related to skill in the sense of competence required to perform in an
occupation. Again the introduction of SOC affected the allocation of
occupations to classes, although its full effect was deliberately
minimised (see Elias, 1995).

However, these are by no means the only changes made to the
official social class scheme since 1921. At every subsequent Census
changes have been implemented not only in the method of classifying
occupations but also in the allocation of particular occupations to
social classes. These make time-series comparisons extremely
difficult. In 1931, for example, male clerks were demoted from class
II to class III; in 1960 airline pilots were promoted from class III
to class II; and in 1961 postmen and telephone operators were demoted
from class II to class IV. These piecemeal changes have important
cumulative effects, yet have to be made because of social and
employment change.

Allocating people to social classes

While individual occupations have been reallocated to different
classes, the overall shape of the model has changed very little
during the past sixty years. The classes are now described as
follows:

I

Professional etc occupations

II

Managerial and Technical occupations

III

Skilled occupations

(N)

non-manual

(M)

manual

IV

Partly-skilled occupations

V

Unskilled occupations

It should already be apparent that social class is a derived
classification achieved by mapping occupation and employment status
to class categories. But where do the raw data come from? The
principal source of reliable national data comes from the decennial
Population Census. Census data on occupation, employer and employment
status are collected for the whole working population and 10 per cent
of these data are then coded and used in analyses. Between Censuses,
government social surveys also collect data required for social
classifications, as do many academic studies. In addition valuable
data for health and medical researchers are derived from death
registration records which include the occupations of deceased
persons.

In practice individuals are assigned to social classes by a
threefold process. First, they are allocated an occupational group,
defined according to the kind of work done and the nature of the
operation performed. Each occupational category is then assigned as a
whole to one or other social class and no account is taken of
differences between individuals in the same occupation group, e.g.
differences of education or level of remuneration. Finally, persons
of particular employment status within occupational groups are
removed to social classes different from that allocated the
occupation as a whole. Most notably, individuals of foreman status
whose basic social class is IV or V are reallocated to social class
III, and persons of managerial status are (with certain minor
exceptions) placed in social class II (see OPCS, 1980:vi and xi;
OPCS, 1991:12).

Ultimately, however, occupations are placed in social classes on
the basis of judgements made by the Registrar-General's staff and
various other experts whom they consult, and not in accordance with
any coherent body of social theory. This is why the classification
has rightly been described as an intuitive or a priori scale. This
does not mean, however, that no theory lay at the basis of
Stevenson's scheme. His notion of 'culture' as embodied by occupation
did depend upon a definite view of social processes. We can see this
when we examine why the scheme was deemed necessary.

Leete and Fox (1977) note that the social class scheme was
designed to analyse infant mortality, although Boston (1984) reports
Stevenson's primary interest as being in the study of fertility, and
especially the then vexed question as to whether the upper and middle
classes were reproducing themselves. Clearly, the two issues are
related, but, as Szreter (1985) shows, they must also be seen as
central to one of the earliest debates in UK social science - that
between the eugenicists and the environmentalists.

Although the first published application of the class schema in
1913 was to the interpretation of infant mortality statistics, the
real inspiration for its construction came from the
nineteenth-century debate about differential fertility, between
hereditarian eugenicists on the one hand and environmentalists on the
other. Stevenson, an environmentalist and advocate of interventionist
public health measures, developed the social class scheme in order to
test and disprove eugenicist theories, Thus, while there is no
explicit sociological theory to support the scheme, it is
nevertheless an assertion of the importance of social factors in
accounting for observed trends in fertility and mortality.

The social class scheme has been widely used by OPCS in census
reports, decennial supplements, the 1% Longitudinal Study and various
survey reports, as well as in many academic studies. Not
surprisingly, given its origins, it has been particularly used in
research on health and in demography. However, for a variety of
reasons some government departments and agencies, and academics in
disciplines other than health studies and demography have used
alternatives to the RGSC, and notably the second of the official
social classifications - Socio-economic Groups (SEG).

For many sociologists, SEG is seen as a better measure than social
class for social scientific purposes. Its seventeen groups can be
collapsed to produce a scheme not dissimilar from that proposed by
Goldthorpe and his associates for their studies of social mobility
and class structure (see Erikson and Goldthorpe, 1992). The reason
for this similarity is apparent: SEG is a measure of employment
status (not 'skill' or 'social standing') and thus speaks theory
without knowing it. The fact that the SEG scheme was originally
proposed to government (in 1950) by David Glass, Goldthorpe's
intellectual predecessor in the mobility field, goes far in
accounting for its social scientific potential.

Thus we have two official ways of classifying people in terms of
their employment, based on different principles and conceptions and
without any straightforward mapping between them. Given this fact,
and given also that the two schemes have remained largely unaltered
for decades while society itself has changed rapidly, OPCS recently
requested the Economic and Social Research Council to undertake a
review of RGSC and SEG. Not only was it thought that two
occupationally-based social classifications might be one too many,
but increasingly government departments and academic researchers have
bemoaned the fact that the classifications can ignore the 40 per cent
of the population who are not in paid employment.

The ESRC Review is in two phases. Phase 1, now completed, examined
whether there was a continuing need for official social
classifications; whether the current ones needed revision; and, if
so, how that revision might be achieved. Phase 2, now underway, is
charged with the task of producing, validating and testing a single,
revised social classification which could be used from the time of
the next Census (see Rose, 1995).

The ESRC review: a summary

The following is a summary of the key findings of Phase 1 of the
ESRC Review. First, there is complete unanimity across central and
local government, academics and the private sector that OPCS social
classifications are necessary. Central government departments need
them because they provide convenient summaries of complex data
relevant to the analysis of social variation and thus to policy
formulation, targeting and evaluation, as well as needs assessment.
The many area classifications and indices of deprivation used by
government departments in determining resource allocation include
elements of the OPCS classifications. The classifications are also
essential for monitoring the health of the population. In the private
sector OPCS classifications are a vital element in the creation of
area classifications by companies in the market analysis field.
Academic researchers need the classifications for scientific
analyses, especially in health, medical, geographic and demographic
research.

Use of the classifications across government departments is
widespread and multiple. Apparently for conventional reasons some
departments favour use of RGSC and others of SEG. As an indication of
the importance of the classifications to users, they are featured by
request in more than thirty 1991 Census tabulations. For both
government departments and academic users, the long time-series
provided by RGSC in particular is of great value both in the
interpretation of social trends and in policy evaluation.

Not least among the advantages of OPCS producing a standard
government classification is that this leaves government in control
of definitions and hence of the information which must be collected
in order to produce classifications. Since OPCS collects the building
block information and processes it, it is only sensible that OPCS
should also determine how data are classified and thereby provide an
approved standard for use in all government departments.

The current classifications have problems especially in terms of
their obscure conceptual basis and limited population coverage.
Nevertheless, for both pragmatic and theoretical reasons,
occupationally-based classifications will continue to remain vital
tools for scientific and policy analyses for the foreseeable future.
This is because, pragmatically, they are based on routinely and
widely-collected data and, theoretically, because it remains the case
that a person's employment situation is a key determinant of life
chances.

Among the key issues to be faced in Phase 2 of the Review is
likely to be that of level of measurement for social classifications.
The current RGSC is ordinal; SEG is a nominal measure. While there is
considerable support in government departments for continuing to have
an ordinal measure, many academic experts disagree. Among academics
there is support for a nominal measure from those who, like
Goldthorpe, would argue that since the categories of employer,
self-employed and employee are central to any sociological class
scheme (and to SEG), it is impossible to have ordered categories.
Arguments that nominal measures are inherently less adequate than
ordinal measures and cannot sustain serious statistical analysis are
dismissed as being outmoded.

On the other hand there are those who believe it is possible and
desirable to create continuous measures of social stratification.
Advocates of the Cambridge Scale take this view, for example. A
continuous scale may be divided into classes, of course, but a scale
is claimed to be a more flexible tool with which to work.

Both the Goldthorpe class scheme and the Cambridge Scale are, of
course, potential alternatives to RGSC and SEG and as such they are
widely used in academic (but not government) research. Nevertheless,
the reasons these schemes were created in part reflect
dissatisfaction with RGSC in particular on theoretical, conceptual
and technical grounds. The Cambridge Scale (CS) goes further in its
implied critique, since its authors reject the whole idea of class
analysis. Based on the scaling of survey respondents' occupational
friendship and marriage scores, the CS is regarded by its originators
as a broad measure of social stratification and social inequality.
Ultimately the scale measures the market outcomes of different jobs
and the lifestyle associated with them. It is not an attempt to
measure the social structure and the way this creates different
market capacities in different sections of the population. Indeed,
the theoretical position of the authors of the CS rejects class
analysis on the grounds that it is a static approach to what are
fundamentally problems relating to social dynamics. Nor is CS a
status scale. It is a measure of lifestyle determined by social
experience and, ultimately therefore, significant social processes.
It is designed to unite key features of both the social and the
economic; and it raises questions about any attempt to analyse social
inequality in terms of categorical measures (see Prandy, 1990).

While RGSC in particular has many problems which need to be
resolved, we should not forget that it has been a very successful
empirical tool whose use has had profound influence on social policy
for several decades. Especially when we consider that it was created
in the context of a debate between eugenicists and environmentalists
in a time before serious theoretical social science had emerged in
Britain, it is not surprising if the RGSC is now considered
inadequate by many academic researchers. And beyond the problems
already discussed, the revision of government social classifications
will have to be considered within the framework of current
intellectual debates surrounding class analysis. Principal among
these, of course, are the unit of analysis problem, the relationship
between gender and class, the appropriate reference occupation for
the retired, the unemployed and other significant economically
inactive groups, and the even thornier problem of the very relevance
of class analysis to contemporary society and social scientific
explanation. However, whatever the problems, it is intended that
Britain should have a new social classification more fitted to the
needs of the twenty-first century.

Rose, D. (1995) A Report on Phase 1 of the ESRC Review of
Social Classifications. Swindon: ESRC.

Szreter, S.R.S. (1984) 'The genesis of the Registrar General's
social classification of occupations',
British Journal of Sociology, 35, 4:523-546.

Szreter, S.R.S. (1993) 'The Official representation of Social
Classes in Britain, the United States and France:
The Professional Model and "Les Cadres"', Comparative Studies in
Society and History, 35, 2:285-317.

Social Research Update is published by:

Department of Sociology
University of Surrey
Guildford GU2 7XH
United Kingdom.

Permission is granted to reproduce this issue of Social Research Update
provided that no charge is made other than for the cost of reproduction
and this panel acknowledging copyright is included with all copies.